Abraham Bentar rohadi.. (the man in the video in my previous post) former Muslim.

http://www.impalapublications.com/blog/index.php?/archives/553-Abraham-Bentar-Rohadi,-by-James-OFee.html

Rohadi, who is 55 and from West Java, was charged with blasphemy after telling clients that Jesus had appeared to him in a dream and healed him of a stroke.

It was Rohadi's brother-in-law who reported him to the authorities, accusing him initially of trying to convert people to Christianity by force and blaspheming the Prophet Mohammed. Later, when Rohadi was visiting a relative in Tasikmalaya, West Java, 'hundreds of Muslims' stormed the house and attacked Rohadi. He was nearly dead by the time police got him to hospital.

....and so fullfilled are the words of our Lord.

Mat 10: 34

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law -
a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'

MUSLIM LEADERS.. ACADEMICS.. speak up.. speak to Indonesia.. ask them to re-think his treatment.

Boaz, you still lack self-awareness:

>>I don't think I've said the passages I quote are the 'only' ones relevant, but I am saying they are urgently relevant. Why ? because they are so different from the 'sugar coated candy' selection which are usually promoted on Islamic web sites.<<

How is this different from "sugar-coated" Christian web sites? Would you be comfortable if I continually sniped at these using, say, descriptions of the Jerusalem massacre of 1099?

"The Crusaders savagely murdered the Jewish and Moslem inhabitants of Jerusalem. The dimensions of the massacre were so horrific that 'rivers of blood' flowed through the streets and even covered the horses hooves. William of Tyre described the victorious Crusaders 'dripping with blood from head to foot, an ominous sight which bought terror to all who met them'. The Jewish community was locked in the central synagogue and burnt alive. The few thousand survivors, out of a population of 40,000, were sold as slaves at the city gates. When they finished murdering thousands of innocent people the Crusaders gathered at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre to give thanks."

(From the Bar-Ilan University website, by the way, not a particularly pro-Muslim institution)

"By their deeds shall ye know them" applies to terrorists of any persuasion, ancient or modern.

Fighting a war of words, as you are Boaz, is only of value where facts are in dispute. We know that your religion disagrees with Islam, so there is absolutely no value in filling page after page of bilious reference to a fifteen-century-old text.

You are also belittling the value of freedom of thought and expression. On the one hand you complain bitterly that "a government (Indonesia) says 'You cannot have a permit to build a Church'", which is clearly an unenlightened approach. But you then advocate that Islam becomes "Australianised" (or "Christianised", to be more precise), which is equally a form of oppression.

What nature of country would you prefer to live in? One that dictates what you may think, or one that allows you to come to your own conclusions?

Dear Pericles..

If you wish to snipe away about the Crusades.. feel free to do so mate. But I'd prefer you limited your criticism to the 'apples with apples' approach, of the founder and those closest to him in both cases.

My response will be my standard one.."Can you connect such things to Christ and the Apostles by example or teaching".... clearly no.

Such is not the case in Islam.

My references to Islam are as follows:
1/ Founder Mohammed.
2/ Quran
3/ Hadith
4/ Sunna (which includes the 2 above plus biographies which are based on the first 2 plus supplmentary information gleaned from witnesses)

I focus on the personal behavior of Mohammed, as reported in those direct documents, to promote a contrast with that of Christ and the Apostles.

You know as well as I do, that if you look around the world, the degree of violence emanating from the Islamic states and followers is endemic and massive. Not so in Christian states or among Christians generally. The explanation for this is in the sources, and foundations.

You may argue (as Muslims would) that Iraq is a classic 'crusade'..but the evidence points to the contrary. No one is taxing the Muslims if they don't embrace Christ, nor is anyone telling them they have 3 choices:

1/ Embrace Christ
2/ Pay a tax
3/ Fight and die or be exiled.

But refer this please:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html scroll to 4294 and read closely.

Note the last deceptive paragraph.

I don't call on Muslims to become 'Christianized' I call on them (as for you) to repent and believe in the Gospel and come to Christ as Saviour and Lord. i.e. Become 'Christians'.

Boaz, you should understand that I place equal weight on the veracity, accuracy, relevance and value of all religious and quasi-religious texts. So referring me to "The Book of Jihad" means as much to me as the Book of Hosea (I'm working from memory here, so forgive me if that was inaccurate) or Paul's Epistle to Philemon.

The problem you have in coming to a balanced assessment of the problems created by religion is that you rely upon one set of texts, and one set of texts only, the New Testament, without any question as to how the content of those texts were sifted and collated, by whom, and to what purpose.

You see, a questioning observer from Alpha Centauri might properly ask how come there is only one narrative here, and how come none of it is from sources contemporary with the main subject?

You glibly ask "Can you connect such things to Christ and the Apostles by example or teaching" when you know full well that the records that you use as reference support only your side of the story.

I would, I confess, be a lot less sceptical if there were one - just one - contemporary record that supports all those sugary feelgood stories about water into wine, lepers healed, stormy waters calmed.

From what I have read, even the most ardent believers have difficulty handling this without resorting to artifice.

"there is not a lot of evidence to go on here. For one thing, the biblical gospels refer to only a few people who are mentioned in extra-biblical sources, though we have more to go on when it comes to geography. Moreover, secular historians writing within a century of Jesus's death show only the tiniest interest in Jesus. This shouldn't be surprising, of course, because from the perspective of Roman historian writing at this time, Jesus was an insignificant blip on the screen." [Mark Roberts "Are the Gospels Reliable"]

Why, if there was this guy wandering around raising people from the dead, and then raising himself from the dead, didn't anyone notice at the time?

Pericles,
Ouch,now that hurts .

Kartiya :) to quote one prominent politician who's name escapes me.. (American I think).."He didn't lay a glove on me" (Pericles)

*sigh*.... Pericles.. Cronulla.. now what relevance does that have to the idea of say the day of Pentecost..or Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead ? PLENTY.. Cronulla was a big event.. it hit the news, but within a month had pretty much faded from prominence. Everyone went home, got back to their lives..and so on.

There is ample evidence internally and externally, including the disputed passage (and the undisputed one)in Josephus, to testify to the reality of Christ. Keep looking... you'll get there.

"BOAZ relies on just one narrative, (NT) and that simply supports his view" really ? ur most welcome to bring Hosea and any other book in the Old Testament to bear on such discussions. Hosea is a good example. God told him "GO...MARRY A HOOKER" in blunt language. But the context clearly shows that this was a symbolic gesture, for specific circumstances, not something to be generalized.

That sword has another edge.. I'm only comparing source documents with source documents and the Islamic ones simply don't see the same problems I do about Islam or its portrayal of God. The fact that the hadith shows Mohammed carving peoples hands and feet off, and poking hot irons in their eyes.. tells you what ? that they don't see such behavior as a problem!

So, the criticism is of their moral/ethical base, as contained in their own traditions which they use as basis for ISLAMIC LAW TODAY.
The hadith are grouped in terms of their legal implications for the Islamic state.

Muslim book 30 is "The book pertaining to the excellent qualities of the Prophet and his companions"
Book 18 "The book pertaining to Judicial decisions"

Our legal system is based on only ONE Old/New testament idea "Do for others as you would have them do for you"

The Church (not the entire society) has this:

"abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood." (Acts 15:20)